Meh, considering the fact there were in fact places with more than 100% turnout, there’s stuff that is very much fishy about it, but I get your point, that we need to move on from it, prevent it from happening again and in addition get more people in line with policy.
The >100% turnout is not really a good way to convince people, because the people that need convincing believe you're saying that's proof of cheating and so you're dumb because it includes same-day and some district somewhere actually had lots of growth and legitimately had >100% because of new voters.
And because "you're dumb" they'll ignore anything else you have to say, even that you know it includes new voters but that's still suspiciously high.
I think it's better to focus on the areas with 90% actual turnout, as in 90% of eligible voters voted. This is higher than countries like AU with mandatory voting and especially with dirty rolls is all but impossible.
Meh, considering the fact there were in fact places with more than 100% turnout, there’s stuff that is very much fishy about it, but I get your point, that we need to move on from it, prevent it from happening again and in addition get more people in line with policy.
The >100% turnout is not really a good way to convince people, because the people that need convincing believe you're saying that's proof of cheating and so you're dumb because it includes same-day and some district somewhere actually had lots of growth and legitimately had >100% because of new voters.
And because "you're dumb" they'll ignore anything else you have to say, even that you know it includes new voters but that's still suspiciously high.
I think it's better to focus on the areas with 90% actual turnout, as in 90% of eligible voters voted. This is higher than countries like AU with mandatory voting and especially with dirty rolls is all but impossible.